Skyscript Astrology Forum

Posted: **Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:28 pm**

. . . your eyes can't pop out of your head so you can see yourself (you'd need a mirror), but planets in the same sign can "feel" each other.

So maybe the Sun can be affected by combustion after all? (That was my question in two other recent combustion threads.) I just gotta know.

Otherwise, I might have to conclude that Sun conjunct Saturn in a chart with Leo rising would make for no Saturn influence on the native's health, vitality and personality because the Sun is supreme and is merely burning up and weakening Saturn.

Posted: **Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:41 pm**

Kirk wrote:
. . . your eyes can't pop out of your head so you can see yourself (you'd need a mirror), but planets in the same sign can "feel" each other.
So maybe the Sun can be affected by combustion after all? (That was my question in two other recent combustion threads.) I just gotta know. Otherwise, I might have to conclude that Sun conjunct Saturn in a chart with Leo rising would make for no Saturn influence on the native's health, vitality and personality because the Sun is supreme and is merely burning up and weakening Saturn.

You're forgetting that Saturn rules the 6th and 7th houses in this case and that the Sun would negatively affect the lord of the 6th house. Such a person would burn like a nova full of vitality (Sun on Leo ascendant) and expire early due to of lack of restraint in areas related to health and partnership. One should look to see if Saturn is in own terms / bounds, otherwise look for hardening of the arteries in later years.

Posted: **Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:01 pm**

You are rather smart.

About those term placements: Deb's new article on the terms mentions the conflicting views as to whether the first term ruler of Leo is Jupiter or Saturn. Just to make it all even messier, you know.

I honestly don't think anyone has a comfortable working relationship with combustion. I think they are glossing over the inconsistencies and contradictions. It appears to be a matter of faith and looking in the other direction. They just know that combustion is said to be important (except for Morin, of course). And it does indeed sound impressive. I myself am really grabbed by the solar/planet phase relationship, with a softening of the conflagration idea and more of a focus on the interaction between Sun and planet ? the planet reporting to the Sun: 'OK, Sun, I went for a walk around the block and this is what's going on out there'. The Sun gets news it can use.

Posted: **Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:06 pm**

Olivia wrote:And putting all that into the context of a chart that belongs to a living, breathing person is the challenge of it all.

Valens texts are sparse on delineation but long on technique: they would do a lot of work just to say a few things with relative certainty.

If Venus and the lot are in the 12th (for example) then, the issue of marriage is already negatively affected due to cadency and the chart is not chrematistikos (telling / busy) for the determination of marriage which I would take to mean that marriage is not amongst the portions handed out by fate so to speak. Take chrematistikos to mean that the planets are not speaking it, therefore it doesn't happen because there was no incantation. The other major factor to consider here is since Venus and the lot are hidden in the glare of the Sun, none of the other planets can make any statements about what is going on (they could not witness it) and therefore when the question comes before the courtroom of the cosmic soul, all one hears is silence, unless Venus can somehow do it on her own through awareness of the presence of that daimon near her.

Posted: **Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:18 pm**

Kirk wrote: I honestly don't think anyone has a comfortable working relationship with combustion. I think they are glossing over the inconsistencies and contradictions...

If you believe what Schmidt said, then the material has since disappeared and been misunderstood since the founding. Definition 15 of Antiochus is the most important definition:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... tart=[b]15[/b]

If you get blinded by the glare, head for Exit 30...

http://www.astrology-x-files.com/sitemap.html

Posted: **Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:23 am**

zoidsoft wrote:I think people are conflating 2 different issues here. There is the issue of a planet being combust which is burning and then there is the issue of visibility which also has to do with how close it is to the Sun.

In most medieval texts there is a difference in range between being under the beams or "invisible" (usually 15) and being burned (usually 8 ) and this might have something to do with the difference. Theoretically a planet is doing several things and chief among them are providing testimony and witnessing. A lot is not quite an entity (like a theos), it is a bit like a disembodied spirit that was never a person. It doesn't have self awareness but it does have being. Planets are thought to have self awareness and therefore they can provide testimony and through sight they are able to witness. Lots do not have the power of sight so lots do not witness for other lots nor can they be a representative of a given house or an ambassador to others because they don't have self awareness. Lots are disembodied powers of the planets that have fallen to earth and their being is thought to be seen by other self aware entities so that they can be made manifest through incantation. However, a planet or a lot can be affected by visibility conditions and just as Olivia might be sitting towards the west at sunset in the glare, both planets and lots can become invisible. The lot is in the glare and Venus is not burned (because of the covered chariot concept), but Venus is also in the glare. This affects their ability to be seen and therefore it breaks down the testimony / witnessing that make things happen. Remember that these concepts were thought of during a time when magical incantation was enough to make something happen; speak it and it becomes so. In Genesis, it says that God told man to name all of the other animals in the field so that he could have dominion over them. This is part of the magical incantation idea and it is also why in Jewish tradition God's name is never spoken and the vowels are left out of YHVH, lest man to have dominion over God.

Venus can not see the lot through the glare but technically would not need to because a co-presence is not an "aspect" where the power of sight is involved. In other words your eyes can't pop out of your head so you can see yourself (you'd need a mirror), but planets in the same sign can "feel" each other. Venus would not need to provide testimony because being in her own places, she can effect from her own significations, but she still needs to know that its present in order to affect from her own significations. Some of this comes from Schmidt's ways of thinking about this subject, but he never put it together in quite this way.

Thank you Mr zoidsoft for your posts,very illuminating!

Posted: **Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:36 am**

kirk wrote:I honestly don't think anyone has a comfortable working relationship with combustion. I think they are glossing over the inconsistencies and contradictions.

I have pretty much ceased contributing to the combustion threads because I've made my points clear enough so many times in the past - but I can only say (in honesty) that I feel very comfortable about the notion of combustion. In fact it is pivotal to my understanding of astrology - and my argument is that the synodic cycles and phases, and these kinds of planetary interactions generate a great deal of ancient, traditional and modern astrological principles.

But students often experience confusion over combustion because they don?t properly understand the deeper philosophy behind it. And they think that a combust planet has to be powerless when it is more about reduction of expressed influence. Curtis has made some good points lately, and I wish he would take more credit for the way that his own mind is articulating these ancient and fairly universal ideas so elegantly.

It?s not about the Sun receiving messages back and ?getting news?; it?s about the Sun illuminating the whole scheme, and its creativity being required to activate the other planetary virtues. I don?t think it is possible to ?half-explain? this, so I try to get over to students from the start that they shouldn?t think about there being 7 traditional planets which are all equal in contribution and importance. Astrology begins with the Sun, and astrology has always been ?heliocentric? in referring to the Sun as the heart, focus or centre of the scheme, (occupying the central sphere, and acting like a king and leader to the other planets). The Moon is the distributor, and the two luminaries act as controlling agents on the other planets.

I think that is true in any form of astrology but I don?t want to try to half-explain something here ? just pointing out that Kirk?s comment is probably a testimony to his own discomfort about this issue, but I know many astrologers who feel differently.

Posted: **Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:17 pm**

But this is on offer right here at Skyscript:

"The conjunction of the Sun and Saturn produces self-control and reserve, irrespective of other indications in your chart. The characteristics of the Sun are restrained, becoming less enthusiastic, more cautious."

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/sunaspects.html#sucsa

How can this be if the Sun is so strong? That's all I'm asking. And no one is telling me why. I see more and more that no one is able to tell me why.

In the quoted example from this site it sounds like Saturn is telling the Sun something and the Sun is taking it to heart. The Sun can be influenced and subdued. But we already knew that because that Sun has its signs of fall and detriment and the Sun has to sink beneath the earth for a few hours each day. So let's realistically apply that to the Sun's relationship to the planets.

Posted: **Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:32 pm**

Kirk wrote:But this is on offer right here at Skyscript:

"The conjunction of the Sun and Saturn produces self-control and reserve, irrespective of other indications in your chart. The characteristics of the Sun are restrained, becoming less enthusiastic, more cautious."

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/sunaspects.html#sucsa

How can this be if the Sun is so strong? That's all I'm asking. And no one is telling me why. I see more and more that no one is able to tell me why.

In the quoted example from this site it sounds like Saturn is telling the Sun something and the Sun is taking it to heart. The Sun can be influenced and subdued. But we already knew that because that Sun has its signs of fall and detriment and the Sun has to sink beneath the earth for a few hours each day. So let's realistically apply that to the Sun's relationship to the planets.

I would take this to be closer to the truth if the Sun were conjunct Saturn in Libra, Capricorn or Aquarius, but not Aries, Cancer or Leo where the light is stronger than the darkness.

Posted: **Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:39 pm**

How can this be if the Sun is so strong? That's all I'm asking. And no one is telling me why. I see more and more that no one is able to tell me why.

Why wouldn't the Sun receive an influence from Saturn, or any other planet, in its union? If the ocean reclaims land doesn't the ocean absorb and diffuse the elements of that land? But the Saturn influence is brought into the expression of the Sun; for example we wouldn't say 'your Saturnine qualities are your points of self-expressive brilliance' as we might if Saturn were strong and dignified and receiving the trine of the Sun.

I didn't read the link you gave by the way. It's not my work and I don't claim to agree with all the published views on this site (I'm happy enough to find a few I agree with sometimes

).

Posted: **Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:44 pm**

I would take this to be closer to the truth if the Sun were conjunct Saturn in Libra, Capricorn or Aquarius, but not Aries, Cancer or Leo where the light is stronger than the darkness.

Yes, that makes sense! Especially in a diurnal chart where the Sun gets an extra boost. Cancer is surprising since it's a cold, wet, nocturnal sign where the Sun is peregrine. The Sun in Cancer is far north of the equator up north, but that doesn't work for the folks down south of the equator, so it tends to be hemisphere specific. I need to think about that one.

Posted: **Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:57 pm**

Deb wrote:

Why wouldn't the Sun receive an influence from Saturn, or any other planet, in its union?

I don't know see how this fits in with this statement from your previous post:

It?s not about the Sun receiving messages back and ?getting news?; it?s about the Sun illuminating the whole scheme, and its creativity being required to activate the other planetary virtues.

It appears to be not simply a question of whether the Sun is all-powerful, but whether it can or can not 'receive'. I'm sorry, but I detect some uncertainty on your part.

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Lots combust?